A work in progress The reason for defining the rights of a Photographer in the UK is because of a lot of myths and bollox spread as gospel, including ridiculous petitions on 10 Down Streets web site, for more details see Here.

As Photographer you have as much rights as any other member of the public, as a Press-Photographer you have rather fewer rights, as you have to abide by the Press Complaints Commission Guidelines, which are already published on this blog ( See Here), as well as other places on the internet.

There are several good books that cover News Photographers and Journalist and the law. One of the problems with defining the rights of a photographer in the UK, is none of the rights are enshrined in a constitution, unlike North America, most laws are generally about what you are not allowed to do, rather than giving the legal right to do something.

So the basis of this page is that you are allowed to take photographs, unless a law or byelaw specifically forbids it. In general terms, you are allowed to take photographs pretty much anywhere in a public place, however there are considerations that need to be borne in mind, first and foremost the definition of what is a public place.

 

It is generally accepted that a public place is any area that the public may have free access to. However, there are public places that are privately owned, and may have conditions attached to the access and use of the place.

For example, a shopping precinct is considered a public place, yet is almost certainly owned, usually by a management company or the developers themselves.

They may impose reasonable restrictions, however they should publish what those restrictions are, including any ban on photography.

If you have paid for access and have been issued to ticket for a venue, they may reasonably expect you to abide by a No Photography Rule, generally these are enforced at Football Stadiums and Concert Venues.

If they do not and you are taking photographs and approached, they may ask you to desist, they may also ask you to leave. Failure to do so may result in you committing an offence, either of trespass (which is a civil offence) or possibly, although unlikely the offence of criminal trespass. In the event that you are asked to stop taking photographs because it is private property, then stop taking photographs.

They cannot however ask or demand that you delete photographs, any attempt at forcing you is illegal, any attempt to man handle you or your equipment is assault, possibly even attempted theft, or criminal damage.

The simplest solution is stop taking photographs, and tell them, you have the right to ask me to stop, you also have the right to ask me to leave. You have no other rights, any attempt to restrain me, or coerce me to do anything else will result in you committing a criminal act. Then leave, do not argue further, just leave. If they attempt to restrain or detain you, call the police, they have no powers of arrest.

If you are in a public place, a truly public place, for example a street taking pictures, no-one has the right to stop you, not even a police officer, as long as by taking the photographs you are not committing a criminal offence, such as obstruction, behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace, or similar. If a police officer asks to stop, demand that he tell you why, if his explanation does not include that you have or are committing an offence, then explain to him/her that you shall continue to go about your legal business of taking photographs in a public place, if he/she wishes you to stop, then ask, "what will he arrest you for?". Most police officers don’t want to arrest someone and then have their colleagues take the piss because they were wrong, so question his actions.

Always talk confidently and with authority to police officers, especially the young ones and that tends to put them on the back foot. There are certain places where you cannot legally take photographs, these however tend to be military, or government or strategic installations, which don’t tend to be that photogenic anyway. However with the introduction of the anti terrorist act 2000, some plod seem to think that they have the right to prevent anyone doing anything, whenever the feel like it.

However, they tend to be few and far between. Always, whenever approached, question the authority of the individual, if it is a member of the public, suggest that they stop being busy bodies and go and do something productive, if they refuse and are even vaguely obstructive, tell them to phone the police if they are not happy, if they won’t, then threaten to call the police yourself if they don’t piss off. If they are a security guard, make sure that they are working for the owners of the site, if you ask, they may even put you in touch with the owners so that you can obtain permission.

There are also occasions when the photographing of a building maybe considered an infringement of copyright (because of trademarks or logos). Quote the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, Section 62 of the Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act provides a specific exemption for buildings and the photography thereof.

 

Representation of certain artistic works on public display (1)This section applies to— (a)buildings, and (b)sculptures, models for buildings and works of artistic craftsmanship, if permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public. (2)The copyright in such a work is not infringed by— (a)making a graphic work representing it, (b)making a photograph or film of it, or (c)broadcasting or including in a cable programme service a visual image of it. (3)Nor is the copyright infringed by the issue to the public of copies, or the broadcasting or inclusion in a cable programme service, of anything whose making was, by virtue of this section, not an infringement of the copyright.

However there are plenty of grey areas relating to the inclusion of copyrighted material in a photograph, so unless the person telling you that you are breaching the copyright of owner of a logo or trademark, is a solicitor, specialising in media rights, I suggest telling them to bugger off.

When it comes to the photographing of trademarks, logos and similar, this is dealt with by Section 31 Incidental Inclusion. If they can't explain what Incidental Inclusion means, the odds are they don't know what they are talking about.

INCIDENTAL INCLUSION Copyright is not infringed by the incidental inclusion of a work in a film or photograph. However, the question of what is incidental is open to a great deal of interpretation and argument and, certainly, if a work has been deliberately incorporated into a photograph, it’s very unlikely it’s inclusion would be held to be incidental.

For example the building that you are photographing is only a part of the image, taking in a wider view, the sky, trees etc, it could be argued that the building in incidental, and that copyright can't apply to the other elements in the photograph. For the full copyright information Click Here

There is so much scare mongering, and the public is so gullible because of the Labour Government with it’s nannying and telling people that everyone is a paedophile, or a terrorist or some other malcontent, and the media don’t help, I suggest that it is time that everyone learns their own rights, and when you meet resistance push against it.

There was a phone-in program on Radio 2 discussing the rights of parents to take photographs of their kids playing football. Some twat called John from Bradford who allegedly managed an under 12 football and that he had the right to stop anyone taking photographs. He maintained that he had stopped people, to be honest if it was me he had approached I would have twatted the moron. John you twat, as the solicitor on the Radio told you, you have NO right.

If it is in public place you have no rights, phone the Police, they will tell you to fuck off. There were frequent references to the images or videos leaking out on to the Internet. What is the matter with these twats, NO Paedophile is interested in kids playing football, NO Paedophile is interested in videos of award ceremonies, and NO Paedophiles are interested in Nativity Plays.

What Paedophiles are interested in is on the Internet, they are interested in chat-rooms were children gather, they are interested in Child Pornography Web sites. It is also complete bollox that you need the permission of all the parents of all the children present at whatever the event. Especially if it is in a public place. The bottom line is there are no more paedophiles now than at any other time in history.

Most sexual assaults on children are carried out by relatives, trusted family members, and they don’t have videos of nativity plays or football matches, they have stills and videos of children actually being abused. So to all parents out there, f*cking grow up, get a sense of proportion and don’t believe that your kids are at any more risk now than I was when I was a kid.

Want This as a PDF File, Click Here